VINTON 

The  Religious  Theory 
of  Civil  Government, 


.   ALEX.    H.  VINTON'S 

ELECTION    SERMON 

1848. 


THE    RELIGIOUS    THEORY    OF    CIVIL    GOVERNMENT. 


DISCOURSE 


DELIVERED    BEFORE 


e  W.  SJriggs, 

GOVERNOR, 

HIS  HONOR  JOHN  REED, 

LIEUTENANT    GOVERNOR, 

THE     HONORABLE    COUNCIL, 

A5D 

THE  LEGISLATURE  OF  MASSACHUSETTS, 

AT 

Stye  2lnmial  (Election,  iDetou0foaB,  Ian.  5, 1848. 


BY   ALEXANDER    H.   VINTON, 

Rector  of  St.  Paul's  Church,  Boston. 


BOSTON: 

DPTTOJC    AND    WENTWORTH,    PRINTERS    TO    THE    STATE. 

1848. 


COMMONWEALTH  OF  MASSACHUSETTS. 


HOUSK  OF  REPRESENTATIVES,  Jan.  6,  1848. 

ORDERED,  That  Messrs.  Crockett,  of  Boston,  Thurber,  of  Plymouth,  and  Gris- 
wrold,  of  Greenfield,  be  a  Committee  to  present  the  thanks  of  the  House  to  the  Rev. 
Alexander  H.  Vinton,  D.  D.,  for  the  able  discourse  delivered  by  him,  yesterday, 
before  the  government  of  the  Commonwealth,  and  to  request  a  copy  thereof  for 
publication. 

CHARLES  W.  STOREY,  CLERK. 


INTRODUCTORY. 


THE  author  of  the  following  discourse  would  take  the 
liberty  of  suggesting,  that  the  theory  of  the  divine  origin 
of  civil  government,  which  is  here  maintained,  is  in  no 
wise  connected  with  the  view  entertained  by  many  in  the 
Episcopal  Church,  of  the  Apostolic  succession  of  the  Chris- 
tian ministry.  The  distinction  is  sufficiently  plain  when 
we  consider  that  the  theory  of  the  discourse  refers  to  civil 
government  merely  as  an  institution,  without  regard  to 
the  person  of  the  incumbent  or  the  method  of  his  appoint- 
ment; while  the  theory  of  the  "  Apostolic  succession"  re- 
lates exclusively  to  the  administrator  himself,  and  the 
manner  of  his  ordination.  The  civil  theory  derives  the 
authority  of  the  magistrate  from  the  fact  that  God  estab- 
lished a  magistracy  in  civil  affairs,  and  leaves  all  question 
of  his  appointment  open  and  free.  It  therefore  admits 
of  any  form  of  government,  from'  Republicanism  to  Des  • 
potism.  But  the  "Church Theory,"  so  called,  denies  any 
authority  in  the  ministry  unless  it  be  derived  through  a 
particular  succession  of  individuals.  It  therefore  admits 
of  but  one  form  of  ecclesiastical  government ;  and,  in  this 
respect,  it  resembles  the  theory  advanced  by  Sir  Robert 
Filmer,  in  defence  of  monarchy. 


The  former  theory,  therefore,  refers  to  government  as  it 
is  a  general  institution ;  the  latter,  as  it  is  a  particular  or- 
ganization ;  and  the  difference  between  them  is  the  differ- 
ence between  an  ordinance  and  an  ordination. 

Whatsoever,  then,  be  the  merits  of  either  of  these  two 
theories,  it  is  evident  that  they  are  not  the  same ;  and 
ought  not  to  be,  as  they  have  been,  confounded. 

Again ; — the  view  here  taken  of  civil  government  as  a 
divine  institution  has  been  charged  as  being  identical  with 
the  union  of  Church  and  State.  It  will  be  plain  to  the 
reader  that  no  such  position  is  assumed  in  the  discourse ; 
and  it  seems  equally  plain  to  me  that  the  one  proposition 
does  not  involve  the  other.  It  is  not  yet  proved  that  a 
government  cannot  be  religious  without  being  sectarian. 
Until  this  is  proved,,  whosoever  objects  to  the  theory  on 
this  ground  does  but  quarrel  with  his  own  inference. 

I  make  these  remarks  in  order  to  disembarrass  a  truth, 
which  I  deem  momentous,  from  any  extraneous  subjects 
which  might,  by  a  confusion  of  thought,  be  entangled 
with  it,  and  hinder  its  reception. 


DISCOURSE. 


Romans,  xiii.  1. 

FOR    HE    IS    THE    MINISTER    OF    GOD    TO    THEE    FOR    GOOD. 

THE  foregoing  chapter  comprises  what  has  been 
called  St.  Paul's  ethics ;  this  exhibits  a  view  of  his 
politics.  In  the  former,'  he  closes  his  prescription  of 
social  duties  with  the  exhortation,  "  Dearly  beloved, 
avenge  not  yourselves,  but  rather  give  place  unto 
wrath,  for  it  is  written,  Vengeance  is  mine,  I  will  re- 
pay, saith  the  Lord.  Be  not  overcome  of  evil,  but 
overcome  evil  with  good."  He  then  passes,  by  a  nat- 
ural transition,  to  consider  the  relation  which  the 
Christian  sustains  to  the  civil  magistracy,  in  which 
alone  on  earth  the  power  is  vested  of  avenging  social 
wrongs.  "  Let  every  soul  be  subject  unto  the  higher 
powers,  for  there  is  no  power  but  of  God.  The  pow- 
ers that  be  are  ordained  of  God.  Whosoever,  there- 
fore, resisteth  the  power,  resisteth  the  ordinance  of 


8 

God,  and  they  that  resist  shall  receive  to  themselves 
damnation.  For  rulers  are  not  a  terror  to  good  works 
but  to  the  evil.  Wilt  thou  then  not  be  afraid  of  the 
power  ?  Do  that  which  is  good,  and  thou  shalt  have 
praise  of  the  same,  for  he  is  the  minister  of  God  to 
thee  for  good.  But  if  thou  do  that  which  is  evil,  be 
afraid,  for  he  beareth  not  the  sword  in  vain ;  for  he  is 
the  minister  of  God,  a  revenger  to  execute  wrath  upon 
him  that  doeth  evil.  Wherefore  ye  must  needs  be 
subject,  not  only  for  wrath  but  also  for  conscience 
sake." 

The  frequency  of  such  maxims  in  the  New  Testa- 
ment, as  a  part  of  the  code  of  Christian  morals,  is, 
at  least,  remarkable.  The  Apostle,  in  his  directions 
to  Titus,  whom  he  had  left  in  the  Island  of  Crete  to 
superintend  the  newly- planted  churches,  instructs  him 
specially  to  "  put  them  in  mind  to  be  subject  to  prin- 
cipalities and  powers,  and  to  obey  magistrates."  And 
St.  Peter,  writing  to  the  whole  company  of  converts 
scattered  throughout  the  several  provinces,  exhorts 
them  thus :  "  Submit  yourselves  to  every  ordinance  of 
man  for  the  Lord's  sake,  whether  it  be  to  the  king  as 
supreme,  or  unto  governors  as  unto  them  that  are  sent 
by  him  for  the  punishment  of  evil-doers  and  for  the 
praise  of  them  that  do  well."  We  find  this  teaching 
confirmed  by  that  of  the  Savior.  When  tempted  by 


9 

some  of  his  enemies  with  the  question,  "Is  it  lawful  to 
give  tribute  unto  Caesar  or  no  ?" — shall  we  give  or  shall 
we  not  give? — his  safe  yet  significant  reply  was, 
"  Render  unto  Cassar  the  things  that  are  Cesar's,  and 
unto  God  the  things  that  are  God's."  And  yet,  again, 
when  he  was  arraigned  before  Pontius  Pilate,  and  was 
reminded  of  his  power  either  to  liberate  or  to  crucify 
him,  he  replied,  "  Thou  couldst  have  had  no  power 
over  me,  except  it  had  been  given  thee  from  above." 

From  such  teaching  as  this,  illustrated  as  it  was  by 
his  own  practical  commentary  living  and  dying,  the  first 
teachers  of  Christianity  might  well  conclude,  that,  in 
enforcing  the  duty  of  civil  obedience,  they  were  only 
.echoing  the  precepts  of  their  Divine  Master.  The 
force  and  value  of  such  instruction  are  enhanced  to 
our  minds  by  the  knowledge  of  the  circumstances 
under  which  it  was  given.  The  early  church  lay 
under  the  peculiar  suspicion  of  being  hostile  to  the 
civil  magistracy.  The  Jews,  who  formed  a  large  part 
of  the  first  converts  to  Christianity,  had  been  reli- 
giously taught  that  the  sceptre  belonged  to  the  issue 
of  David's  line,  and  that  any  other  king  than  a  child 
of  Abraham  must  be  a  usurper.  An  easy  inference 
from  such  principles  would  be,  that  resistance  to  the 
political  powers  was  an  act  of  devotion  to  God,  and 
rebellion  was  only  heroic  piety.  And  these  principles 
2 


10 

were  not,  in  fact,  without  their  fruit.  About  fifteen 
years  before  the  beginning  of  the  Savior's  ministry ; 
there  had  arisen,  in  Palestine;  an  impostor,  called 
Judas  of  Galilee ;  who  maintained  that  it  was  unlawful 
to  render  tribute  to  the  usurping  Roman  government ; 
and  claimed  for  his  system,  a  spirituality  which  set  it 
aloof  from  all  political  inquisition  or  control.  His 
system  was  soon  exploded,  and  the  term  "  Galilean" 
became  a  name  of  suspicion  and  reproach.  When, 
therefore,  Jesus  Christ  came  forth  from  Galilee,  pro- 
claiming a  new  and  spiritual  kingdom,  it  was  natural 
that  he  should  incur  the  odium  attached  to  this  asso- 
ciation of  facts,  and  be  mistaken  for  an  abettor  of  the 
old  political  heresy.  This  circumstance  explains  the 
question  touching  the  tribute  money ;  and  the  reason 
of  the  common  suspicion  of  his  character  and  designs. 
Now,  when  we  are  informed  that  the  title  of  Galileans 
was  commonly  applied  to  the  early  Christians,  even  to 
the  time  of  the  emperor  Julian,  thus  identifying  them 
with  the  disciples  of  a  religious  school  which  refused 
subjection  to  every  political  power  ;  we  can  perceive  the 
peculiar  pertinence  of  the  Apostolic  injunctions  of 
civil  obedience.  Indeed,  if  was  deemed  so  essential 
to  the  reputation,  as  well  as  the  truth  of  Christianity, 
that  it  should  not  be  confounded  with  the  profane  and 
revolutionary  scheme  which  it  was  accused  of  perpetu- 


11 

ating ;  that  we  find  the  early  apologists  for  Christianity 
levelling  some  of  their  strongest  refutations  against 
the  specific  charge  of  its  seditious  tendency.* 

To  estimate  more  fully  the  force  of  this  Apostolic, 
teaching ;  we  are  to  bear  in  mind  that  the  -primitive 
disciples  lay  under  peculiar  provocations  to  resist  the 
arm  of  secular  authority.:  The  infant  church  was 
every  where  persecuted  and  cast  out  as  an  offence ; 
until  martyrdom  grew  to  be  the  Christian's  inevitable 
cross,  as  it  was  deemed  likewise  the  pledge  of  his 
covenanted  crown.  It  was  evidently,  in  such  a  state 
of  things,  that  St.  Peter  wrote  his  first  Epistle ;  and  it 
is  equally  well  known,  that  the  Christians  at  Rome,  to 
whom  our  text  was  addressed,  were  at  that  moment; 
living  under  the  dominion  of  a  monarch  the  most 
profligate  and  tyrannical — in  whose  nostrils  the  savor 
of  Christianity  was  an  intolerable  offence.  Under 
these  circumstances,  such  injunctions  as  we  have. cited 
are,  to  say  the  least,  remarkable;  and  when  we  find 
them  so  implicitly  urged,  we  naturally  look -for  their 
grounds.  If  the  practice  be  so  indispensably  pious, 
its  principle  should  be  a  part  of  the  theory  of  piety. 
And  we  find  that  St.  Paul  makes  it  so.  The  duty  of 
civil  submission  is  made  at  once  to  rest  on  a  religious 
dogma.  "He  is  the  minister  of  God  to  thee." 

*  V.  Chrysostom,  Horn,  on  Rom.  13. 


12 

"  Wherefore,  ye  must  needs  be  subject  not  only  for 
wrath  but  for  conscience  sake."  Civil  obedience,  and 
whatsoever  form  of  duty  to  the  state,  is  a  religious 
tribute  to  Heaven,  because  God  ministers  in  the  per- 
son of  the  magistrate.  As  this  declaration  involves  a 
general  principle,  it  has  lost  none  of  its  value  or 
solidity  by  time.  Whatever  truth  it  had  as  a  general 
principle,  it  will  constantly  retain,  till  human  magis- 
tracy shall  cease.  I  ask  your  attention  while  I  make 
this  truth  the  subject  of  my  discourse. 

"  He  is  the  minister  of  God  to  thee,"  says  the  text, 
and  "  the  powers  that  be  are  ordained  of  God,"  says 
the  context. 

The  word  "ordained"  denotes  a  specific  appoint- 
ment ;  a  formal  plan  and  institute ;  something  deliber- 
ately invented  and  ratified.  Commentators  agree  in 
assigning  this  as  the  true  sense  of  the  term.  I,  there- 
fore, assume  it  as  the  admitted  meaning  of  Scripture, 
that  civil  government  is  a  special  divine  appointment ; 
that  God  rules  in  and  by  the  magistrate ; — rules  not 
in  the  way  of  tolerance  alone ;  not  as  he  permits  the 
promiscuous  deeds  of  men,  good  and  bad,  wise  and 
foolish,  freely  acting  out  their  own  voluntariness ;  not 
by  merely  withholding  his  interference  ;  but  rather  by 
solemn  institution  and  a.  constant  decree.  This  is 
the  religious  view  of  civil  government.  No  studious 


13 

reader  of  the  Scriptures  will  deny  that  they  present 
this  view  in  marked  and  luminous  prominence.  I  am 
quite  aware,  indeed,  that  the  principle  I  have  just 
enunciated  is,  even  when  not  formally  opposed,  often 
deemed  obsolete.  It  has  long  been  classed  with  the 
errors  that  have  seethed  in  the  minds  of  men  for  a 
time,  shaken  the  structure  of  society,  and  then  been 
thrown  out  arid  trodden  under  foot.  In  discussing  it 
afresh,  therefore,  I  may  seem  to  grope  among  the 
ashes  of  an  extinct  controversy,  in  the  vain  experi- 
ment of  kindling  some  glow  of  their  old  volcanic  heat. 

But  the  period  is  past  for  this  question  of  gov- 
ernment to  convulse  the  nations,  as  in  former  days. 
Time  has  already  travailed  with  this  controversy,  and 
the  great  principle  of  human  freedom  which  it  brought 
to  light  was  a  birth  for  many  generations.  Yet,  if  the 
proposition  I  have  laid  down  be  scriptural,  then,  as  in- 
volving a  religious  element,  it  must  live  and  impart  life. 

My  object  is,  to  have  it  recognized  as.  a  vital  power 
in  human  organizations ;  and  specially  to  see  it  ad- 
mitted as  legitimate  in  civil  government.  "  Let  God 
be  true,  though  every  man  be  a  liar." 

In  the  following  remarks,  I  shall  first  sketch  the 
history  of  this  religious  view  of  government,  as  con- 
nected with  the  theories  of  polity  in  modern  times ; 
and  then  show  how  far,  and  for  what  reasons,  it  should 
enter  into  our  own. 


H 

Long  after  the  primitive  times  of  Christianity,  the 
maxim,  that  the  magistracy  was  divinely  appointed, 
was  the  settled  basis  of  Christian  governments.  For 
a  course  of  ages,  this  maxim  was  the  bulwark  of  the 
papal  supremacy;  deemed  impregnable,  and  therefore 
unassailed.  Every  monarch  rested  his  sceptre  on  the 
platform  of  divine  right.  But  when  Luther  hurled 
his  .iron  gauntlet  against  the  doors  of  the  Vatican,  the 
defiance  echoed  throughout  Europe,  and  awoke  in  the 
human  breast  the  slumbering  instinct  of  'right.  Men 
seemed,  as  for  the  first  time,  to  be  inspired  with  the 
solemn  sense  of  freedom.,  as  the  prerogative  of  hu- 
manity. But  they  awoke,  as  from  a  swoon,  convul- 
sively. The  new  life  of  this  conviction  was  a  paroxysm, 
and  they  fought  as  well  as  argued  for  it.  They  not 
only  questioned  religious  but  civil  supremacy,  until 
there  grew  a  protestantism  of  politics.  In  various 
lands,  the  controversy  was  waged  with  great  power  of 
reasoning,  and  always  with  violence;  until,  at  length, 
the  principles  of  human  freedom,  as  they  were  called, 
in"  opposition  to  the  divine  authority  of  government, 
became,  in  some  lands,  practically  established;  while. 
in  others,  they  could  only  hold  a  place  in  men's  minds 
as  theoretically  justified." 

*  For  a  more  detailed  history  of  opinion  on  this  subject,  v.  "  The  So- 
cial Compact  Exemplified,"  by  John  Quincy  Adams.  Providence,  1842. 


15 

The  form,  however,  in  which  this  angry  question 
presented  itself,  was  of  the  divine  right,  not  of  Gov- 
ernments, but  of  Kings.  It  is  true,  that  the  advocates 
of  this  opinion  threw  themselves  for  support  upon  the 
abstract  principle  that  Government  is  a  Divinity.  But 
the  meaning  of  their  assertion  was,  that  their  King 
was  divine ;  and  their  inference  was  natural  that  he 
was  therefore  infallible,  and  could  do  no  wrong.  They 
recognized  only  an  administration  absolute,  and  there- 
fore unquestionable.  Such  a  comprehensive  conclu- 
sion was  a  simple  charter  to  despotism.  It  created  a 
Saturnalia  for  monarchs,  but  laid  the  cost  on  human 
freedom.  In  England,  this  theory  was. most  plausibly 
advocated  on  the  ground  of  the  patriarchal  institution 
of  the  Old  Testament ;  and  as  the  question  was  thus 
carried  back  to  the  historical  origin  of  civil  govern- 
ment, it  was  opposed  on  that  basis.  When  Mr. 
Locke  propounded  the  scheme  which  has  since  been 
familiarly  known  as  the  theory  of  the  social  compact, 
he  declined  to  admit,  as  a  historical  fact,  the  leading 
statement  of  the  opposite  theory.  He  supposed  the 
origin  of  magistracy  to  have  been  laid  in  a  voluntary 
convention  of  the  people,  erecting  their  own  govern- 
ment, and  electing  whom  they  would  for  its  adminis- 
tration. By  this  theory,  the  magistrate  held  his  office 
on  an  implied  contract  with  the  people  that  he,  for 


16 

his  part,  should  exercise  his  powers  for  their  interest, 
while  they  still  held  the  reserved  right  of  deposition 
for  an  abuse  of  trust.  The  peculiar  vice  of  the  for- 
mer theory  was,  that  it  made  the -magistrate  unim- 
peachable, and  took  away  the  right  of  revolution ;  the 
sacred  ultima  ratio  of  down-trodden  humanity.*  But, 
on  the  other  hand,  the  theory  of  the  social  compact, 
congenial  as  it  is  found  in  practice  with  human  prog- 
ress, had  more  than  one  vicious  element. .  In  the  first 
place,  it  was  historically  untrue.  It  grounded  itself 
on  a  supposed  state  of  facts  which  never  existed. 
Probably  no  civil  government  was  ever  originated  by 
a  voluntary  convention  of  all  without  exception  who 
were  to  be  its  subjects.!  It  is  quite  plain,  at  least, 
that  the  primitive  history  of  the  race  gives- no  coun- 
tenance to  such  an  explanation,.  If  we  come  down 
one  step  this  side  of  the  flood,  when  the  world  was 
distributed  by  Noah  among  his  three  sons ;  the  his- 
tory of  governments  would  rather  seem  to  bear  out  the 

*  "  Sir  Robert  Filmer  did  not  perceive  that,  by  the  laws  of  nature  and 
of  God,  every  individual  human  being  is  born  with  rights  which  no  indi- 
vidual, or  combination  of  individuals,  can  take  away  ;  that  all  exercise  of 
human  authority  must  be  under  the  limitation  of  right  and  wrong." — /.  Q.  , 
Adams's  Social  Compact,  p.  24. 

t  "  In  the  formation  of  any  social  compact  by  the  people,  we  may  as- 
sume it  as  a  first  principle  that  the  individuals  covenanting  for  the  whole 
can  never  amount  to  more  than  one  in  five'of  the  whole." — Id.  p.  9. 


17 

theory  of  Hobbes,  (who,  infidel  though  he  was,  stum- 
bled into  coincidence  with  Scripture  ;)  that  magistracy 
was  laid  in  conquest ;  the  first  great  government  be- 
ing that  of  Nimrod,  "  a  mighty  man" ;  that  is,  a  con- 
queror ;  who  laid  the  foundation  of  Babel.  (Gen.  x.) 
If  we  descend  another  step,  we  find  the  Patriarchal 
government  decreed  in  the  call  of  Abraham  ;  and,  still 
lower  down,  the  legitimate  and  full-formed  Theocracy. 
As  a  mere  theory,  then,  the  social  compact  had  no 
historical  basis.  This,  indeed,  is,  after  all,  a  question 
of  no  practical  moment;  since  the  Scriptures  them- 
selves do  not  insist  upon  the  mode  of  government,  as 
at  all  affecting  its  authority.  When  our  text  was  writ- 
ten, there  were  represented,  among  the  several  na- 
tions of  the  earth,  though  enfolded  in  the  great  Ro- 
man despotism,  all  the  various  forms  of  civil  polity. 
Hence  it  was  not  necessary  to  any  theory  to  prove  its 
conformity  to  the  original  pattern  of  government,  since 
the  form  of  administration  was  unimportant  to  the 
practical  issue,  while  the  attempt  to  do  so  in  a  way 
which  rejected  the  scriptural  history  seemed  like  a  de- 
parture from  truth  ;  and  shed,  upon  the  theory  of  the 
social  compact,  a  complexion  of  irreligion. 

Its  antiscriptural  character  is  exposed  in  another 
point ;  for  it  represents  the  body  of  the  people  as  the 
grand  fountain  of  authority.     From  them,  the  magis- 
3 


18 

trate  receives,  by  election,  the  office  which  they  have 
alone  instituted ;  to  them,  he  is  solely  responsible ; 
and,  according  to  the  familiar  maxim  of  politics,  he  is 
the  servant  of  the  people.  Now  here  is  a  literal  con- 
tradiction of  the  religious  maxim,  "  he  is  the  minister 
of  God ;"  holding  an  office  whose  authority  man  did 
not  create ;  responsible  reverently,  and  supremely,  to 
the  divine  Ordainer  of  magistrates.  The  minister  of 
God,  indeed,  to  tJiee,for  thee,  the  people,  and  for  thy 
good,  but  not  of  thee,  nor  from  thee ;  for  that  were 
atheism.  The  mode  of  appointment  is  one  thing, 
while  the  authority  of  the  administration  is  another. 
"  The  apostle  refers,"  says  St.  Chrysostom,*  not  "  to 
persons,  but  to  powers."  This  is  not  an  unmeaning 
distinction.  It  is  illustrated  as  a  real  thing  in  the 
history  of  the  Theocracy  itself,  in  which  the  Israel- 
ites actually  gave  their  formal  consent  to  the  political 
administration  of  their  affairs  by  Jehovah.  (Ex.  xix.)  So 
that  the  Theocracy  was  elective,  yet  was  it  never  alleged 
that  the  election  constituted  its  essential  divine  au- 
thority. Forgetting  or  slighting  this  distinction  be- 
tween the  source  of  authority  and  the  power  of  ap- 
pointment, the  theory  of  the  social  compact  seemed  to 
alienate  religion,  and  to  stand  alone,  in  perfect  human 
sufficiency.  It  was  negatively  atheistic,  and  it  thus 

*  Homily  on  Romans. 


19 

invited  the  practice  of  atheism.  Now,  if  there  be  any 
such  thing  as  the  organic  relation  of  a  nation  to  the 
great  Governor  of  the  world, — if  God  be,  in  any  valid 
and  available  sense,  the  Ruler  of  nations, — this  omis- 
sion to  recognize  him,  or  to  make  much  of  him,  in  the 
essential  theory  of  government,  was  a  fearful,  if  not  a 
fatal,  oversight.  The  reason  of  this  omission  doubt- 
less was,  that  the  philosophy  of  the  day,  and  specially 
of  Mr.  Locke  himself,  had  no  place  for  the  idea  of  an 
organic  unity  in  the  state.  Essentially  the  philos- 
ophy of  materialism,  it  made  society  an  aggregate,  not 
a  unit.  The  nation  was  a  mere  conglomerate,  cement- 
ed externally ;  not  an  organized  product,  having  an 
interior  diffused  life  of  its  own,  working  its  own  growth 
and  ripeness,  and  dependent,  all  the  while,  in  its  or- 
ganic capacity,  upon  the  great  Being  who  was  the 
Founder  of  nations  no  less  than  the  Creator  of  man. 
Its  theory  of  social  life  was  a  pure  unmitigated  indi- 
vidualism. Wherever  the  philosophy  of  materialism 
spread,  drawing  all  its  ideas  from  the  outward,  and 
making  the  senses  the  source  of  last  appeal,  there 
spread  congenially  the  theory  of  the  social  compact. 
It  was  infidelity's  great  battering-ram,  with  which  she 
shattered  the  outmost  bulwarks  of  society,  even  as,  by 
the  other  weapons  of  that  philosophy,  she  sapped  the 
strong  holds  of  social  defence,  the  church,  and  the 


20 

family.  Hence  the  remark  of  an  affectionate  disciple 
of  that  school,  of  some  of  the  Parisians,  just  before 
the  breaking  out  of  the  French  Revolution,  that  they 
were  "  wonderfully  enlightened,  and  spoke  like  men 
who  had  read  Locke." 

Thus,  then,  did  these  two  great  theories  of  national 
polity  stand  side  by  side  before  the  world ;  the  one 
making  every  thing  of  the  magistrate,  even  up  to 
divinity ;  and  nothing — or  nothing  valuable — of  man  ; 
the  other  exalting  the  mass  of  individuals  to  a  suprem- 
acy, that  seemed  to  make  all  other  sovereignty  an 
encumbrance  to  be  superseded. 

While,  in  its  common  application,  the  theory  of 
divine  right  led  to  an  irreclaimable  despotism ;  irre- 
claimable because  it  seemed  to  bear  the  awful  signa- 
ture of  Heaven ;  so,  in  strictness  of  reason,  the  the- 
ory of  the  social  compact,  resolving  all  law  into  the 
majority  of  mere  wills,  leaving  the  minority  without 
remedy  or  appeal  of  wrong;  confounded  authority  with 
numbers  and  brute  force ;  and  erected  a  despotism  no 
less  unmitigated  than  the  other,  and  far  less  reverend 
because  atheistic.*  Between  these  two  systems,  the 
world  was  called  to  decide — the  divine  right,  and  the 

*  "The  theory  of  a  social  contract,  though  somewhat  plausible  at  first 
view,  does  not  bear  the  test  of  accurate  examination ;  and  is  rarely  admit- 
ted at  the  present  day,  by  competent  judges." — A.  H.  EVERETT,  Life  J.  J. 
Eousseav,  N.  Am.  Rev.,  July,  1822. 


21 

popular  right  of  civil  government.  It  seemed  to  be 
taken  for  granted  that  the  two  had  no  points  of  con- 
tact, and  could  never  coalesce ;  and  the  decision  of  the 
nations  was,  therefore,  absolutely  for  one  or  the  other. 
The  world  knows  how  France  cast  her  vote  for  the 
social  theory,  as  it  was  developed  by  the  French  ex- 
pounders of  Mr.  Locke;  the  disciple,  as  usual,  going 
beyond  his  master,  though  not  in  advance  of  his  mas- 
ter's principles.  France  adopted  the  popular  princi- 
ple to  the  extent  of  its  most  ruthless  radicalism. 
The  issue  of  the  experiment  is  sufficiently  notorious. 
Our  own  nation  has  made  election,  likewise,  of  the 
same  theory,  as  the  basis  of  its  polity ;  though,  with 
a  mitigation  of  its  ferocity,  and  with  conservative 
checks.  But  the  great  question  is ;  are  these  checks 
sufficient  ?  Is  there  not  the  same  capacity  for  mis- 
chief, in  our  modified  system,  as  in  its  simpler  forms  ? 
And  what  shall  prevent  the  development  of  its  poten- 
tial evil  ?  What  are  the  bands  of  government  ?  Now, 
in  answer  to  these  questions,  the  theory  of  the  social 
compact  points  to  the  enlightened  selfrinterest  of  the 
people,  the  inborn  love  of  order,  and  the  conscientious 
sense  of  duty  to  the  nation.  Are  these  sufficient  to 
conserve  the  government? — is  the  grand  world-problem 
of  the  present  century.  When  self-interest  fails  to 
be  enlightened,  and  degenerates  into  passionate  sel- 


22 

fishness ;  or,  when  varying  self-interests  refuse  to  ac- 
commodate each  other,  where  is  the  bond  of  union  ? 
"In  the  inbred  love  of  order;"  says  the  theory. 
But  is  the  love  of  order  strong  enough  to  overpower 
selfishness ?  If  not,  where  again  is"  the  bond ?  "In 
the  conscience  of  the  people ;"  is  the  final  answer  of 
the  theory.  And,  in  truth,  we  need  look  no  farther. 
We  know  that  the  great  Maker  of  us  all  has  given  ,to 
the  moral  sense  a  position,  in  our  natures,  of  supremacy. 
In  the  scale  of  human  attributes,  conscience  was  evi- 
dently designed  for  the  governing  rank.  It  is  the 
regal  faculty  of  the  soul.  If  we  secure  its  enlightened 
protection,  we  secure  all  besides ;  love  of  order,  and 
the  largest  wisdom  of  self-interest.  We  bind  all  other 
bonds.  But  conscience  herself  needs  a  guide  and  a 
rule.  She  can  only  see  the  way,  not  shape  it  for  her- 
self;— follow  the  rule,  not  invent  it.  Conscience  is 
an  eye,  not  an  infallible  instinct.  She  does  not  in- 
struct, but  is  instructed.  The  whole  great  question, 
then,  is  resolved  into  this,  Does  the  social  theory  sup- 
ply the  necessary  helps  and  incentives  to  conscience 
for  the  conservation  of  the  nation?  According  to 
that  theory,  government  is  only  a  mutual  contract, — 
a  contract  from  which,  on  violation  of  its  conditions, 
either  party  may  recede.  Each  party  is  thus  the 
arbiter  of  its  own  cause,  and  acts  on  its  own  inde- 


23 

pendence  of  the  other,  both  in  its  judgment  and  its 
Execution.  Now,  in  a  system  of  such  broad  license, 
so  easily  degenerating  into  licentiousness,  it  is  plain 
that  conscience  needs  the  aid  of  the  most  stringent 
and  solemn  sanctions.  If  the  government  be  only  a 
contract  between  equals,  then  the  duty  of  conscience 
is  simply  the  duty  between  men  as  individuals ;  the 
duty  of  abiding  by  the  stipulations  of  a  bargain.  The 
relation  between  the  government  and  the  governed 
becomes  a  purely  commercial  one.  Allegiance — fealty 
—if  there  be  such  words  in  its  vocabulary,  is  a  mere 
mercantile  virtue,  the  principle  of  the  counting-house 
and  the  exchange.  The  same  constraint,  and  no 
more,  which  holds  a  citizen  in  honor  and  honesty 'to 
his  neighbor,  would  forbid  him  to  rebel  against  the 
state.  Now  is  there  not  danger  that,  in  the  proverb- 
ial fluctuations  of  commercial  virtue,  the  political  con- 
science of  the  people,  floating  on  that  tide,  may  be 
tossed  and  founder  ?  When  we  remember  the  ten- 
dencies of  a  commercial  age  to  accumulate  not  always 
with  strict  reference  to  a  moral  law,  and  that  the  mer- 
cantile conscience,  rests  often  on  the  sense  of  interest 
or  pride ;  when  we  think  of  the  evasions  of  right  that 
often  grow  into  mercantile  usages  ;  when  we  bear  in 
mind,  finally,  how  infectiously  this  moral  deterioration 
may  spread  itself  to  other  relations  of  life,  lowering 


the  standard  of  moral  right,  does  it  not  seem  that  our 
great  political  experiment  rests  on  a  hasis  too  narrow 
for  its  top  ?  We  do  injustice  to  the  great  cause  of 
human  rights,  we  do  injustice  to  the  social  theory 
itself,  when  we  allow  it  to  resolve  all  the  obligations 
of  citizenship  into  a  merely  social  duty ;  for  that  is 
a  duty  which  belongs  only  to  the  second  table  of  the 
great  moral  law,  and,  by  resting  upon  it,  the  social 
theory  divorces  itself  from  the  yet  higher  sanctions  of 
the  first  table.  It  urges  only  our  obligations  to  our 
neighbor,  and  shuts  out  the  more  exalted,  solemn 
sense  of  duty  to  God. 

Now,  remember  that  the  experiment  of  self-govern- 
ment, as  we  are  fond  of  describing  our-  polity,  is,  to 
say  tha  least,  an  awful  experiment  for  fallen  man. 
Nay,  the  phrase  itself,  if  taken  in  its  absoluteness,  is 
impious  and  fearful.  But,  supposing  it  to  mean  only 
so  much  as  is  consistent  with  the  recognition  of  some 
sort  of  law  higher  than  human  enactment,  as,  indeed, 
the  supposition  of  a  popular  conscience  implies ;  still 
the  experiment  is  momentous  ;  and  we  peril  its  great 
issues,  and,  in  them,  we  peril  the  well-being  of  human- 
ity at  large,  when  we  trust  them  to  a  national  con- 
science supported  only  on  one  side.  The  constant 
tendency  of  self-government  is  for  man  to  become  his 
own  standard.  There  is  to  him,  then,  nothing  be- 


25 

yond  what  he  himself  creates.  Truth  resolves  itself 
to  his  mind  into  mere  opinion.  His  law  is  self-will, 
and  then  his  virtue — is  an  accident* 

It  is  not  safe,  thus  to  reduce  the  quality  of  our  po- 
litical obligations ;  to  make  the  moral  element  of  duty 
exclusive;  banishing  the  religious  element  from  our 
system.  It  is  not  safe,  simply  because  it  is  not  relig- 
ious. God  will  not  approve  a  nation  which  is  irre- 
ligious on  system,  and  dutiful  only  from  a  conscien- 
tiousness which  may  be  based  on  pride  or  interest. 
And  if  he  fail  to  approve,  then  a  woe  betides  her 
grandeur.  Her  prowess  and  distinction  are  only  a 
more  attractive  mark  for  the  destroyer  when  her  fated 
day  shall  come.  "  Hear  now  this,"  says  the  prophet, 

*  This  subject  reminds  me  of  a  conversation  with  the  late  Dr.  Channing, 
about  seven  years  ago,  on  the  island  of  Rhode  Island,  in  which  he  spoke 
at  large,  through  the  greater  part  of  a  summer  afternoon,  of  the  principles 
and  prospects  of  the  Republic.  It  was  the  period  of  repudiation. 

Although,  upon  the  whole,  he  declared  himself  hopeful  for  the  country, 
yet  he  confessed,  with  much  solemnity  of  manner,  that  the  growing  disre- 
gard of  mercantile  virtue,  as  betokened  by  repeated  instances  of  public 
and  private  defalcation,  was  an  omen  full  of  discouragement,  and  that, 
without  a  remedy,  the  nation  would  be  lost.  There  have  since  been  signs 
of  a  return  of  the  "  popular  conscience"  to  a  more  healthy  state.  But  it 
may  be  fairly  questioned  how  much  of  this  improvement  proceeds  from 
the  mere  pride  of  character  excited  by  indignant  reproaches  from  abroad; 
or  from  a  removal  of  the  commercial  embarrassments  and  of  the  tempta- 
tion to  "  repudiate."  Such  shocks  can  be  honorably  and  repeatedly  borne 
only  by  a  principle  both  deeper  and  higher  than  the  sense  of  reputation. 

4 


speaking  of  a  Heaven-despising  nation,  "  these  two 
things  shall  come  to  thee  in  a  moment,  in  our  day ; 
the  loss  of  children,  and  widowhood.  They  shall  come 
upon  thee  in  their  perfection.  For  thou  hast  trusted 
in  thy  wickedness  ;  thou  hast  said,  -'  there  is  no  over- 
seer.' Thy  wisdom  and  thy  knowledge,  it  hath  per- 
verted thee ;  and  thou  hast  said  in  thy  heart,  I  am, 
and  none  else  besides  me.  Therefore  shall  evil  come 
upon  thee,  and  thou  shalt  not  know  from  whence  it 
riseth ;  and  mischief  shall  fall  upon  thee  ;  thou  shalt 
not  be  able  to  put  it  off."  By  infusing  into  our  polit- 
ical system  the  religious  element,  we  reinforce  the 
sanctions  of  conscience ;  we  exalt  the  sentiment  of 
national  duty,  from  a  cool-blooded  calculation  of  in- 
terest, into  a  reverential  affection.  We  bring  the 
whole  stress  of  the  divine  law  to  conserve  the  repub- 
lic. We  constrain  order  and  peace,  not  only  by  the 
sense  of  mutual  right  among  equals,  but  by  the  noble 
convictions  of  duty  to  God.  Allegiance  to  the  state 
is  then  fealty  to  Heaven,  and  patriotism,  then,  looks 
upwards  in  its  devotion,  and  its  countenance  reflects  a 
heavenly  light.  The  social  theory  must  borrow,  from 
the  old  patriarchal,  its  vital  element.  It  must  invoke 
a  "t)ivinity  to  hedge  its  king."  It  must  adopt, 
lovingly  and  in  faith,  the  confessed  principle  of  the 
Bible,  that  the  magistracy  is  divine.  Then  will  our 


political  theory  stand  forth  in  symmetry  and  compact- 
ness, upheld  by  a  great  national  conscience  which  re- 
gards, not  only  the  contract  of  honor  between  the 
people  and  the  magistrate,  but  the  covenant  of  loyalty 
to  the  institution  of  Heaven.* 

In  saying  thus  much,  I  ought  to  notice  an  objection 
which  is  commonly  urged,  and  as  commonly  deemed 
fatal  to  the  principle  for  which  I  speak.  It  is  asked, 
Does  not  the  theory  of  the  divine  right  result,  una- 
voidably, in  the  doctrine  of  passive  obedience  to 
tyranny ;  and  would  .not  resistance  to  the  magistrate, 
under  any  circumstances,  be  a  virtual  crime  against 
God  ?  To  this  objection  I  might  reply,  by  saying, 
that,  as  the  idea  of  authority  does  not  necessarily  in- 
clude infallibility,  so,  neither  does  it  follow  that,  be- 
cause authority  is  divine,  it  is,  therefore,  unlimited. 
A  delegated  supremacy  may  be  absolute  in  its  sphere, 
and  yet  its  sphere  be  restricted  by  definite  and  even 
narrow  bounds.  But,  not  to  dwell  upon  distinctions 
which  may  seem  too  abstract,  I  would  meet  the  ob- 
jection by  a  familiar  analogy.  Besides  the  divine  ap- 
pointment of  civil  magistracy,  there  is  another  human 
_X  .'  .-;• '..;•;  '-:  •.  -Jj 

*  "  The  principle  of  the  Protestant  Reformation  was  to  deny,  not  that 
human  government  was  of  divine  institution,  but  that  implicit  belief  and 
obedience  was  due  to  the  commandments  of  men." — J.  Q.  ADAMS,  Soc. 
Comp.,  p.  21. 


28 

institution  which  stands  forth  on  the  same  authority. 
I  mean,  the  domestic  institution.  The  family,  no  less 
than  the  state,  is  of  divine  origin.  Filial  obedience 
is  a  duty  of  piety  towards  God.  The  parent  is  the 
Heaven-appointed  master  of  the  family, — the  child,  a 
Heaven-obliged  subject.  The  duty  of  the  one  is  im- 
plicit, and  the  authority  of  the  other  is  absolute. 
But  it  does  not  follow  that  either  is  unlimited.  All 
persons  admit  that  there  may  be  emergencies  which 
justify  filial  disobedience,  in  which  "  the  first  command- 
ment with  promise,"  as  it  is  called,  "Honor  thy  father 
and  mother,"  may  be  set  aside ;  and  the  child  may 
stand  up  before  his  human  parent  and  assert  his  in- 
dependence as  a  child  of  God.  Without  attempting 
to  specify  the  reasons  which  would  warrant  such,  an 
exception,  I  may  say,  what  will  be  generally  admitted, 
that  the  child  may  transgress  the  parental  rule  only 
when  his  obedience  would  involve  the  violation  of  a 
higher  law.  When  submission  to  the  parent  is  iden- 
tical with  disobedience  to  God,  the  filial  duty  deceases. 
The  human  being  rises  above  the  domestic.  His  in- 
subordination to  man  is,  then,  simple  allegiance  to 
God.  If  we  transfer  this  reasoning  to  the  case  of 
civil  obedience,  the  objection  to  the  theory  of  the 
divine  authority  of  government  is  sufficiently  met, 
That  theory  does  not  deny  the  moral  propriety  of  dis- 


29 

obedience,  under  all  circumstances.  On  the  contrary, 
it  may  recognize  the  maxim  of  the  early  Christian 
martyr  Polycarp,  "  giving  honor  to  potentates,  but  not 
in  contradiction  of  religion."  It  will  justify  rebellion 
when  conformity  would  be  a  crime.  It  thrusts  aside 
minor  obligations,  to  save  those  which  are  fundamental. 
It  deposes  the  delegated  authority,  in  order  to  make 
way  for  the  supreme.  It  exalts  the  human,  above  the 
national;  and  makes  rebellion  not  only  conceivably 
justifiable,  but  even  dutiful.  The  right  of  revolution 
is,  then,  literally  a  sacred  thing ;  because  it  is  obedi- 
ence to  the  highest  divinity  of  government. 

If  it  be  asked,  "Where  then  lies  the  superiority,  in 
this  respect,  of  this  theory  over  that  of  the  social 
compact ;"  I  answer,  that  the  latter  recognizes  rebellion 
as  one  of  its  legitimate  consequences.  As  it  has  been 
interpreted,  at  home  as  well  as  in  France,  it  makes 
revolution  almost  the  rule  of  political  life,  and  obedi- 
ence its  constrained  exception  ;  whereas,  the  scriptu- 
ral theory  exalts  the  duty  of  obedience,  pregnant  as 
it  is  with  reverence  and  self-denial,  and  the  unsolicit- 
ed love  of  patriotism,  into  the  noble  rule  of  a  beauti- 
ful life  ;  and  it  makes  the  act  of  revolution  the  rare 
and  sublime  exception,  in  which  conscience  herself 
does  but  tread  down  the  earthly  government  that  she 
may  rise  in  nobler  allegiance  to  the  divine.  While  it 


30 

invests  the  magistrate  with  the  transferred  dignity  of 
Heaven,  it  holds  him  stringently  to  his  duty,  by  a  tie 
that  is  thus  twofold, — divine,  as  well  as  human. 

There  would  seem,  then,  to  be  a  strong  reason  why 
the  offcast  principle  of  a  divine  magistracy  in  the  state 
should  be  restored  to  its  due  place  in  the  minds  of 
men.  The  theory  of  the  social  compact,  forgetful,  as 
it  has  always  been,  of  religion,  may  even  yet  be  graft- 
ed with  this  great  religious  truth  of  politics.  And  it 
is  just  matter  of  holy  thanks  that  the  rising  up  of  a 
better  style  of  philosophy  is  preparing  the  age  for  its 
admission. 

The  material  philosophy  had  no  place  for  the  idea 
of  a  spiritual,  organic  unity  of  the  state,  aside  from  and 
above  the  mere  assemblage  of  men,  and  women,  and 
children.  It  gave  no  credit  to  general  ideas.  It  be- 
lieved nothing  but  the  senses ;  and,  as  it  could  not 
see  nor  hear  an  abstraction,  it  refused  the  conception 
of  a  spiritual  institution  in  any  other  than  an  accom- 
modated sense.  It  regarded  society  not  as  a  corpo- 
rate unity  so  much  as  a  loose  juxtaposition  of  indi- 
viduals. Being  essentially  analytical,  it  resolved  all 
things  into  their  elements ;  but,  following  only  the 
rule  of  the  senses,  it  carried  its  analysis  no  farther 
.than  material  tests  would  go.  Hence,  in  government, 
the  people  were  all ;  .the  state  was  only  a  fictitious 


31 

name  for  the  people  in  action.  It  was  not  possible, 
in  such  a  system,  to  find  a  vacant  niche  for  the  ab- 
stract magistracy  as  a  perpetual  institution  of  God. 
Its  grand  negation  of  religion  was,  therefore,  essential 
to  its  whole  theory  of  government.  Now,  as  this  na- 
tion has  felt  obliged,  in  adopting  the  social  theory,  to 
stop  short  of  its  radical  extreme,  and  refuse  some  of 
its  practical  absurdities,  why  may  it  not  rectify  its  vital 
fault  by  the  infusion  of  a  more  wholesome  religious 
philosophy  ? 

That  better  philosophy  would  teach  us,  that  society 
is  but  the  complete  form  of  human  nature ;  that  man, 
as  an  individual,  is  not  the  whole  of  humanity;  that 
the  state  is  a  positive  subsistence ;  the  magistracy 
the  perpetual  regency  of  Heaven  for  the  nation's  weal. 
If  it  be  asked,  "  what  influence  could  be  exerted  upon 
the  national  character  and  destiny  by  such  a  mere 
abstract  notion"  ?  I  answer,  the  same  influence  that 
abstractions  have  universally  upon  the  character  of 
men  and  of  society ;  a  mastering  influence ;  uncon- 
scious, but  vital,  pervading  and  plastic ;  the  same  in- 
fluence that  faith  has  in  the  soul,  regenerating  it;  or 
that  life  has  in  the  body,  resisting  or  healing  disease. 
Abstractions  are  the  source  of  power ;  as  meditation  is 
the  mother  of  all  voluntary  life.  We  have  no  safety 
for  our  institutions,  even  now,  but  in  the  conservative 


32 

power  of  abstract  truth  operating  on  the  conscience  of 
our  citizens.  The  principle  before  us  is  but  a  new 
power  of  truth,  acting  in  the  same  way,  to  the  same 
end. 

But  let  us  now  proceed  to  develope,  more  at  large, 
the  bearings  of  this  view  upon  the  powers  of  govern- 
ment. 

Theoretically,  the  aim  of  government  is  the  conserva- 
tion of  human  rights ;  and  I  know  of  no  better  de- 
scription of  those  rights  than  that  which  is  conveyed 
by  our  Declaration  of  Independence  in  the  order  of 
"  life,  liberty,  and  the  pursuit  of  happiness."  Govern- 
ment is  the  conservator  of  all  these.  It  is  the  minis- 
ter of  God  to  thee  for  this  good.  As  God's  servant, 
then,  in  the  first  place,  it  is  evident  that  the  magis- 
trate may  hold  a  right  over  human  life  which  could 
not  belong  to  individuals,  and  which  no  authority  less 
than  divine  could  bestow.  On  the  principle  of  the 
social  compact,  capital  punishment,  even  for  the  greater 
security  of  life,  is  a  plain  aggression  upon  individual 
rights.  Rousseau  himself,  with  other  warm  advocates 
of  that  theory,  admitted  that,  as  the  authority  of  the 
magistrate  was  derived  from  the  people,  it  could  rise 
no  higher  than  theirs ;  and,  since  no  man  has  a  right 
to  deprive  himself  of  life,  he  cannot  rightfully  empower 
his  servant  to  do  it.  Hence  capital  punishment  is 


33 

cruelly  absurd.  On  the  same  theory  of  individualism, 
regarding  man  as  all,  and  the  government  as  his  mere 
creature,  rests  much  of  the  opposition  to  capital  pun- 
ishment in  our  time.  Religion  has,  in  some  quarters, 
taken  the  almost  exclusive  form  of  sympathy  for  hu- 
man suffering  ;  as.  if  every  duty  to  God  were  fulfilled 
in  philanthropy;  while  philanthropy, without  the  sanc- 
tions of  piety  and  a  spiritual  mind,  inevitably  fails  to 
contemplate  the  lasting  interests  of  man ;  and  narrows 
itself  down  to  his  temporal  comfort  alone.  The 
material  grows  to  supersede  the  abstract.  The  tan- 
gible present  outvies  the  spiritual  eternal.  Hence, 
with  our  commiseration  for  the  suffering  criminal, 
there  is  scarcely  enough  of  filial  lamentation  for  the 
outraged  state.'  We  sing,  as  the  psalmist  did,  "  of 
mercy,"  but  not  "  of  judgment."  And  so,  to  the  view 
of  that  philosophy  which  identifies  the  government 
with  the  people,  capital  punishment  is  but  a  bloody, 
popular  revenge.  But  the  scriptural  principle  that 
the  magistracy  is  from  God,  bearing  a  sword  not  in 
vain,  adjusts  the  difficulties  of  this  great  question; 
exalts  the  magistrate  above  the  man,  and  above  the  peo- 
ple ;  invests  him  with  the  serene  and  passionless  maj- 
esty of  law ;  and  makes  him  the  mouth-piece  and  ex- 
ecutor of  divinity,  with  a  sword,  "bathed,"  as  the 
prophet  says,  "  in  Heaven."  (Is.  xxxiv.  5.) 
5 


Secondly.  Again, — since  government  is  the  divine 
conservator  of  liberty,  as  well  as  of  life,  and,  for  this 
end,  bears  a  sword,  the  principle  of  our  text  shows  the 
propriety  of  defensive  war.  This  position  is  likewise, 
in  our  time,  much  controverted;  and,  on  the  same 
grounds,  as  capital  punishment.  Separating  philos- 
ophy from  its  indispensable  ingredient  of  piety,  which, 
in  the  New  Testament,  are  always  fused  and  com- 
mingled, exalting  the  Christian  maxims  for  private 
conduct,  and  discarding  the  Christian  doctrine  of  gov- 
ernment, the  non-resistant  denounces,  with  a  trucu- 
lent eloquence,  even  the  strictest  self- defence,  and 
gives  his  opponent  no  peace  till  the  whole  field  of  phil- 
anthropy is  laid  waste,  and  philanthropy  herself  some- 
times wounded  and  slain. 

It  is  so  difficult,  however,  to  dislodge,  from  human 
minds  and  hearts,  the  conviction  that  roots  itself  in 
both  mind  and  heart,  of  the  moral  propriety  of  national 
and  home  defence,  that  it  is  safe  to  leave  this  ques- 
tion to  the  generous  and  just  instincts  of  mankind.* 
It  is  enough  for  my  purpose  to  say,  that  the  scriptural 

*  In  some  recent  discourses  by  the  Rev.  President  "Wayland,  on  the  duty 
of  "  civil  obedience,"  the  right  of  national  defence  is,  by  this  profound 
writer,  distinctly  maintained,  although  on  a  different  ground  from  that 
assumed  in  this  discourse.  The  fact  is  the  more  worthy  of  note  because 
the  authority  of  this,  as  well  as  of  other  distinguished  names,  has  been 
erroneously  brought  to  support  the  theory  of  a  total  non-resistance. 


85 

idea  of  human  government  strongly  reinforces  those 
instincts,  and  impresses  it  as  the  high  function  of  the 
magistrate  to  defend  the  nation  with  sword  as  well  as 
shield.  "  If  my  kingdom  were  of  this  world,"  said 
the  Savior,  "  then  would  my  servants  fight."  (Jno. 
xviii.  30.)* 

Thirdly.  Again, — not  only  for  the  security  of  life 
and  liberty,  but  for  ensuring  the  pursuit  of  "  happi- 
ness," says  our  Declaration  of  Independence,  was  gov- 
ernment ordained.  And  here  the  subject  expands 
into  a  wide  field.  Important  questions  meet  us  at  the 
opening.  "What  is  meant  by  the  "  pursuit  of  happi- 
ness"? Is  it  temporal  enjoyment,  or  spiritual  and 
eternal?  Is  it  sensual  pleasure,  or  mental  cultiva- 
tion ?  How  far  does  the  authority  of  government  ex- 
tend ?  Can  it  prescribe  and  enforce  the  mode,  and 
must  it  supply  the  means,  of  this  pursuit,  or  shall  it 
leave  to  each  person  the  freedom  to  choose  and  act 
as  he  deems  best  for  his  happiness  ?  Now  the  philos- 

*  The  use  of  this  text  from  St.  John,  in  the  application  which  I  have 
made  of  it  in  this  discourse  and  elsewhere,  has  been  objected  to.  It  is  evi- 
dent, however,  that  the  meaning  which  I  have  thus  ascribed  to  our  Savior's 
words,  is  in  entire  harmony  with  the  scriptural  theory  of  civil  government, 
even  if  it  may  not  be  said  to  grow  out  necessarily  from  that  theory.  In 
none  of  the  commentaries  which  I  have  consulted,  have  I  found  any  thing 
contradictory  to  this  interpretation,  while  the  opinion  of  the  late  Dr.  Arnold 
is  explicitly  in  its  favor.  V.  Arnold's  Lectures  on  Modern  His.  Append,  to 
Inaug:  Lee. 


36 

ophy  of  individualism  might  decide  these  questions 
in  one  way,  while  the  theory  of  the  Bible  would 
determine  them  otherwise.  They  are  so  replete  with 
the  material  for  discussion,  that,  in  this  connexion,  I 
can  only  glance  along  their  prominent  points.  By  the 
doctrine  of  the  Scriptures,  civil  government  was  divine- 
ly instituted  for  human  good ;  and,  hy  the  doctrine  of 
our  Declaration  of  Independence,  the  highest  good  of 
life  and  liberty  is  "  the  pursuit  of  happiness."  And 
here  meets  us  the  first  question, — what  is  the. happi- 
ness thus  denoted  ?  "With  the  open  Bible  before  us, 
and  the  no  less  open  book  of  human  life,  it  were  use- 
less to  labor  the  point.  As  an  intelligent  being,  man's 
truest  happiness,  lies  in  the  preeminence  of  his  reason 
over  his  senses ;  as  a  moral  being,  in  the  supremacy 
of  his  conscience  over  both  ;  and,  as  an  immortal  creat- 
ure, in  his  fitness  for  that  eternal  state,  to  which  this 
life  is  only  the  gymnasium.  If  we  receive  the  true 
sense  of  the  language,  therefore,  the  grand  object  of 
civil  government  is,  the  completion  of  our  nature  in 
all  the  qualifications  for  its  whole  everlasting  life  : 
and  this  great  work  involves,  of  necessity,  the  educa- 
tion of  the  people,  not  only  intellectually,  but  morally 
and  religiously.  Can  any  thing  less  be  inferred  from 
the  divine  institution  of  civil  government,  than  that  its 
most  solemn  care  should  be  for  the  mental  and  relig- 
ious advancement  of  the  commonwealth  ? 


37 

On  this  point,  we  are  not  without  the  authority  of 
wise  men,  and  masters  in  political  science.  Aristotle, 
with  such  religion  as  he  had,  maintained  that,  in  the 
education  of  the  citizen,  the  pursuit  of  "  truth  and 
beauty,"  by  which  he  intended  to  describe  all  the  ob- 
jects of  man's  higher  faculties,  was  to  be  preferred  to 
the  study  of  those  things  which  are  merely  "  neces- 
sary or  useful."*  And  Mr.  Burke  has  said  that  "  relig- 
ion is  so  far,  in  my  opinion,  from  being  out  of  the  prov- 
ince of  a  Christian  magistrate,  that  it  is,  and  it  ought 
to  be,  not  only  his  care,  but  the  principal  thing  in  his 
care  ;  because  it  is  one  of  the  great  bonds  of  human 
society,  and  its  object  the  supreme  good,  the  ultimate 
end  and  object  of  man  himself. "f 

But  our  own  practice  has  forestalled  all  theoretic 
objection  to  this  view.  If  not  in  our  general  govern- 
ment, yet  in  our  state  administrations,  the  education 
of  the  citizen  is  recognized  as  one  of  their  functions, 
and  that  education  is  made  to  embrace,  as  one  of  its 
indispensable  branches,  the  teaching  of  Christian  mo- 
rality. 

We  have  thus  decided,  that  the  highest  good,  the 
true  happiness,  of  the  citizen,  is  his  moral,  as  well  as 
his  mental,  advancement.  We  have  answered  a  great 

*  Aristot.  Pol.  B.  4.  C.  14. 
f  Works,  Vol.  5.  p.  369. 


38 

question,  and  bur  answer  is,  thus  far,  in  accordance 
with  the  religious  theory  of  civil  government. 

But  another  suggestion  arises  ;  How  far  does  the 
power  of  government  extend  ?  Must  it  leave  each 
citizen  to  act  out  his  separate  individuality ;  to  pursue 
his  happiness  according  to  his  own  views  of  happiness, 
and  of  its  method ;  or  shall  government  prescribe  the 
mode,  as  well  as  point  out  the  end  ?  Shall  it  enforce 
its  prescriptions  with  authority,  and  bind  the  whole 
nation,  to  a  systematic  education,  in  both  mind  and 
morals;  in  religion,  no  less  than  in  learning?  These 
are  questions  which  our  practice  has  not  fully  solved ; 
but  whose  answer  may  be  inferred  from  our  text. 
"  He  is  the  minister  of  God  to  thee  for  good."  It 
would  reasonably  appear  to  belong  to  such  an  office, 
not  to  leave  the  highest  good  to  the  pursuit  of  each 
separate  citizen ;  but  to  mark  out  the  path  of  pursuit, 
and  lead  him  to  engage  in  it. 

The  divinity  of  government  empowers  it  to  stand 
up  in  advance  of  the  people ;  and  to  direct  them  in 
whatsoever  affects  their  best  interests.  It  is  the  state's 
organic  judgment  and  will,  its  eye  and  hand,  to  secure 
for  the  state,  by  both  its  wisdom  and  its  power,  the 
highest  weal  of  man.  It  should,  therefore,  constrain 
the  whole  education  of  the  people,  and  specially  en- 
force the  sober,  solemn  teachings  of  religion.  On  this 


39 

point,  unless  I  mistake,  our  national  practice  needs  a 
corrective.  It  has  been  remarked,  of  the  two  great 
states  of  ancient  times,. that  Roman  education  was  a 
part  of  the  government ;  and  the  Grecian  government 
a  part  of  its  education."  In  this  respect,  our  own  sys- 
tem hears  an  evident  resemblance  to  the  Grecian. 
Our  polity  is  the  embodiment  of  our  philosophy ;  and 
our  philosophy  is  the  expression  of  our  national  hab- 
its and  training.  But,  in  the  Grecian  education,  we 
discover  two  distinct  methods,  depending,  for  their 
vitality  and  power,  on  different  principles.  The  Spar- 
tan method  was  made  effective  by  the  pervading  prin- 
ciple of  control ;  the  Athenian  drew  its  efficiency  from 
incitement.  The  former  was  a  system  of  restraint ; 
the  latter,  of  development. 

A  glance  at  our  national  peculiarities  shows  how 
nearly  kindred  they  are  to  the  Athenian  character- 
istics. We  are  a  commercial  people  as  well  as  they ; 
restless,  busy  and  enterprising ;  fathoming  all  depths ; 
measuring  all  distances ;  and  testing  all  the  powers  of 
nature  and  art.  Our  education,  instead  of  resting  on 
the  principle  of  restraint,  aims  supremely  at  successful 
efort .  We  plant  a  ladder  at  every  post  of  honor.  •  We 
widen  the  paths  of  social  distinction.  We  lay  open 
the  arena  of  political  strife,  and  give  the  crown  to  the 

*  Maurice's  Lectures  on  Nat.  Education.  Lee.  1. 


40 

best  wrestler.  The  life  of  our  education  is  incitement ; 
its  result  is  development.  It  is  an  education  which 
makes  much  of  man,  the  individual.  It  grows  nat- 
urally from  our  theory  of  individualism.  It  is  admi- 
rably adapted  both  to  stimulate  and  indulge  the  en- 
ergies of  an  energetic  people.  But  the  education  of 
simple  development  is  not  the  education  for  fallen 
man.  It  is  based  upon  a  grand  fallacy  of  theology 
and  of  human  nature.  If  all  the  human  attributes 
were  pure  and  virtuous ;  if  the  germ  of  man's  spiritual 
character  had  no  worm  of  evil  gnawing  its  vitality ;  if 
all  that  is  necessary  were,  merely  to  give  Heaven's 
light  and  warmth  to  powers  whose  natural  growth  is 
heavenward ;  this  would  be  unquestionably  the  best 
education.  It  would  be  the  training  of  Heaven  itself. 
But  since  the  fall  has  depraved  us,  and  our  faculties 
and  affections  have  suffered  a  bias  from  that  shock, 
no  experiment  could  be  more  unwise  than  an  educa- 
tion of  simple  incitement.  Even  if  we  aimed  to  de- 
velope  only  the  better  parts  of  human  nature,  leaving 
its  perversities  untouched ;  yet  life  is  full  enough  of 
unholy  stimulants,  and  the  insurgent  instincts  of  wick- 
edness are  strong  enough  of  themselves  to  develope 
all  the  evil  of  our  natures  at  an  equal  pace,  to  say  the 
least,  with  our  virtues.  That  is  the  only  wise  train- 
ing which  nurtures  the  tardy  good,  and  fetters  the 


41 

swift  evil,  of  our  humanity.  The  radical  want  of  our 
educational  system  is  that  of  restraint. 

And  this  is  no  second-rate  influence.  It  is  the 
only  mould  of  a  really  heroic  character.  All  the 
noblest  attributes  of  man  are  laid  in  his  control  of 
his  own  nature.  Few  men  were  ever  self-denying, 
who  had  not  been  trained  to  denial  in  their  child- 
hood. The  system  of  development  may  produce  char- 
acters of  marked  individuality ;  of  surpassing  energy ; 
of  high  mental  or  physical  prowess.  It  may  en- 
gender independence  of  feeling,  and  impatience  of 
tyranny,  and  a  vaulting  ambition,  and  the  jealous 
pride  of  self-respect.  But,  in  all  this,  if  it  be  exclu- 
sive, it  only  insulates  each  man,  by  strengthening  his 
biases,  making  him  less  like  his  .neighbor,  and  devel- 
oping his  peculiarities  into  offensive  singularities.  He 
is  more  self-indulgent,  less  social,  less  fitted  for  the 
accommodation  of  society,  less  considerate  of  the  com- 
mon interest,  less  observant  of  law,  and  a  worse  cit- 
izen. His  moral  qualities,  the  source  of  all  motive- 
power,  prone  to  evil,  and,  by  this  system,  unhindered, 
must  inevitably  bend  his  other  energies,  with  all  their 
trained  strength  of  development,  to  a  course  of  way- 
ward indulgence  and  inveterate  self-will. 

If  this  be  not  our  present,  character,  its  germinant 
signs  may  be  detected  in  all  the  departments  of  social 
6 


42 

\ 

influence  and  training ;  from  the  nursery,  through  the 
schoolhouse  and  the  college,  up  to  the  Commonwealth. 
There  is  a  premature  development  of  self-will,  an  ear- 
ly pride,  a  jealous  insubordination,  a  want  of  reverence 
for  authority,  which  are  neither  wholesome  nor  en- 
couraging. What  their  finished  work  may  he  on  the 
national  character,  and  through  how  many  generations 
these  qualities  will  run,  gathering  force  and  aggrava- 
tion before  they  explode  the  corporate  unity  of  the  na- 
tion, is  foreign  to  my  purpose  to  forecast.  We  have 
not  yet  realized  it ;  perhaps,  because  we  have  not  sur- 
vived the  influences  of  an  education  into  which  disci- 
pline was  allowed  to  enter.  But  let  the  future  be 
wary  and  watchful  for  these  consequences.  Be  it 
ours  to  obviate  the  cause.  The  plain  remedy  is  found 
in  the  principle  of  restraint,  exerted  upon  the  will  and 
the  propensities  of  the  citizen,  from  his  childhood, 
upwards.  It  is  a  cogent  and  wholesome  power.  It 
teaches  self-  denial ;  the  love  of  order  and  of  law ;  filial 
reverence  to  authority ;  and  that  submission  which,  as 
Bishop  Berkeley  says,  is  "  the  cement  of  society."*  It 
curbs  the  salient  propensities;  strikes  off  offensive 
peculiarities;  engenders  the  sympathy  of  a  common 
life ;  and,  by  directing  all  wills  to  one  central  authori- 
ty, it  creates  a  national  unity  and  compactness,  which 

*  Minute  Philosopher :—  Works,  Vol.  II,  p.  14. 


43 

is  not  only  proof  against  invasion,  but  an  equal  pre- 
ventive of  insurrection.  It  implies  the  true,  ancient 
sentiment,  of  patriotism  "for  our  altars  and  our 
hearths;"  a  sentiment  that  halts  on  one  foot  when 
you  take  away  its  religious  element,  and  leave  no  al- 
tars ;  or,  what  is  the  same  thing,  no  reverence  for 
their  divinity.  It  is  hut  half  a  patriotism,  at  last.  If 
the  principle  of  restraint  were  exclusive,  or  strongly 
paramount,  in  our  education,  I  admit  that  it  would 
produce  only  the  mechanical  uniformity  of  Spartan 
character,  or  the  stolid,  impregnable  hardness  of  the 
Russian.  But,  when  combined  with  the  system  of 
development,  gathering  all  the  energies  of  individual 
character,  as  they  are  brought  into  lively  play  by  in- 
citement ;  and  banding  them  together  by  a  common 
subordination  to  law  and  order ;  and  thus  adding  to 
the  sum  of  individual  energies  the  power  of  a  corporate 
life,  it  would  seem  to  present  the  theory  of  a  perfect 
national  education.  There  would  seem  to  be  no  pitch  of 
grandeur  which  we  may  not  reasonably  aspire  to,  and 
safely  reach.  It  is  vain,  in  our  day,  to  ground  this 
rule  of  restraint  on  any  other  than  a  religious  basis. 
This  want  of  our  system  is  philosophically  met  by  the 
scriptural  theory  of  government,  and  by  nothing  else. 
Let  government  be  regarded  as  a  religious  institu- 
tion, and  its  right  and  duty  will  be  at  once  ackriowU 


44 

edged,  of  guiding  the  nation  in  the  pursuit  of  its 
highest  happiness,  both  by  instruction  and  by  restraint, 
with  prayer  and  faith.  I  know  how  liable  the  min- 
gling of  religion  with  politics  is  to  be  charged  with 
sectarianism.  But  I  know,  besides,  that  the  charge 
comes  most  impatiently  from  the  spirit  of  religious  in- 
difference, which  is  itself  the  most  unwholesome  secta- 
rianism; never  charitable,  never  kind;  which  would 
extinguish  all  earnestness  that  is  in  advance  of  itself, 
and  tolerate  nothing  but  negation.  Still,  if  our  na- 
tional experiment  is  ever  to  prosper,  the  principle  must 
yet  triumph,  that  the  citizen  shall  obey  the  magis- 
trate, "  not  only  for  wrath,  but  for  conscience  sake," 
because  "  he  is  the  minister  of  God  to  thee  for  good." 
But  it  is  time  to  close  a  discussion,  which  is  impor- 
tant and  fruitful  enough  for  a  volume.  In  address- 
ing, however,  the  chief  magistrate  and  his  associates 
in  the  legislative  and  executive  departments  of  the 
Commonwealth,  I  cannot  conclude  my  discourse  with- 
out suggesting  the  practical  bearing  of  our  subject 
upon  them  and  their  office.  At  first  view,  it  may  seem 
to  exalt  them  higher  than  popular  jealousy  will  tol- 
erate. And  it  does,  indeed,  confer  a  dignity,  but  a 
dignity  so  solemn  and  full  of  responsibility,  that  one 
may  well  bid  himself  "  beware  with  what  intent  he 
touches  that  holy  thing."  By  the  light  of  the  truth, 


45 

we  have  considered  how  does  your  station  seem  to  be 
set  above  the  reach  of  bribery  and  indirection ;  how 
far  away  from  the  profane  ambition  of  mere  office- 
seeking.  Yet,  the  principle  of  our  text  is  as  strong  a 
curb  to  official  prerogative  as  to  popular  encroach- 
ment. It  no  more  makes  license  the  privilege  of  gov- 
ernment, than  it  pronounces  the  popular  whim  to  be 
its  origin.  On  the  contrary,  its  proper  influence  is  to 
hold  the  magistrate  by  the  most  impressive  consider- 
ations that  can  affect  the  conscience  of  man.  If  it 
shows  him  how  near  his  office  is  to  heaven,  it  should 
only  make  him  feel  how  pure  his  motives  ought  to  be. 
and  to  what  a  high  pattern  of  rectitude  he  should  con- 
form himself.  He  ought  to  feel  that  he  is  represent- 
ing the  divine  government  of  human  affairs.  If  this  view 
were  cordially  entertained,  would  it  not  deepen  his 
sense  of  responsibility  to  Heaven,  and  his  solicitude 
for  the  true  interests  of  the  Commonwealth  ?  This  is 
the  single  practical  inference  which  I  take  the  liberty 
of  suggesting.  The  purpose  of  your  assembling  to- 
gether from  your  separate  homes  is,  to  establish  the 
laws  of  the  Commonwealth.  Yours  may  well  be  called 
the  highest  department  of  government.  Legislation 
has  a  divinity  all  its  own.  It  is  the  voice  of  the  state's 
wisdom ;  the  form  of  her  conscience  ;  the  mould  of  her 
character.  It  is  the  divine  supremacy  of  the  rational 


over  the  outward.  It  is  an  address  from  God's  mind 
to  man's.  It  is  a  creative  power.  How  soberly  and 
conscientiously  should  you  engage  in  the  high  voca- 
tion !  Suffer  me,  then,  in  presenting  to  you  the  re- 
spectful greeting  which  the  occasion  warrants,  to  ex- 
press the  prayerful  wish,  that  your  deliberations  may 
be  so  guided  by  the  purity  and  wisdom  that  are  from 
above,  as  to  demonstrate  that  you  are  "  the  ministers 
of  God"  ;  and  so  followed  by  advantage  to  the  Com- 
monwealth, as  to  prove  that  you  are  ministers  "  to  us 
for  good." 


THE  LIBRARY 
UNIVERSITY  OF  CALIFORNIA 

Santa  Barbara 


THIS  BOOK  IS  DUE  ON  THE  LAST  DATE 
STAMPED  BELOW. 


Series  9482 


THERN  REGIONAL  LIBRARY  FAC|UTY 


